egg yolks, good read, nil broscience

[denzil]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/new ... d=10827359

intresting stuff

[Diab0lic]

Junk. Correlation dos not equal causation. Goes against what I have read about egg yolks and dietary cholesterol intake. These kinds of observational studies are not very rigorous and are open to bias, etc.

What about all the other shit they ate and drank, exercise, familial history? Any asshole, professor or not, can put out a media release. If this appears in a peer reviewed journal then Ill take notice. Even then there are a larger amount of studies saying no or little risk in moderation so meh. 3 yolks a week is jack lol

[jimmybro1]

Wow, that's interesting. I eat 2 yolks a day! So almost 5 times the recommended amount.

Your body needs cholesterol to produce testosterone and I find egg yolks an excellent source. As well as all the vitamins etc that come with the yolk.

Is the issue with the egg yolks the cholesterol alone? As all animal meats have cholesterol as well and people seem to be over paranoid about cholesterol.

If you relatively active a live a healthy lifestyle surely this little extra cholesterol isn't going to kill you?

[jimmybro1]

Yeah no Broscience, rather BSscience

[FellowshipOfTheRon]

yeah no kidding, this article is not even good enough for the likes of broscientists. sample size 1200 people and seemingly no control at all.

as mentioned above, corellation != causation

then they proceed to speel on about cholesterol lining your arteries etc.... while this may be true, they took no care to mention that there are both 'good'(HDL) and 'bad'(LDL) types of cholesterol - of course the good type is found in egg yolks.

don't have links (so broscience) to prove it atm but since the drama of the 70s had quietened down, didn't they conduct several other studies to prove that replacing other sources of fatty foods with eggs (in moderation, keeping whole diet in check in regards to over all fat consumption) actually helped 'clean up' clogged arteries?

you would think a University of Health Sciences would know better..

[jimmybro1]

you would think a University of Health Sciences would know better..

Pretty degrading to the University you who think, or perhaps the media has altered the facts?

[FellowshipOfTheRon]

you would think a University of Health Sciences would know better..

Pretty degrading to the University you who think, or perhaps the media has altered the facts?

Yeah you're right we should give the University the benefit of the doubt. It's very likely this study has been misread or blown out of proportion by some reporter hungry for a controversial story.

inb4 reporter tracks a dead bodybuilders dietary log and finds out he had 8 eggs for breakfast - compelling evidence of study!

[Riccardo]

Lol what a load of crap. Journalists latch on to these type of studies every so often and sensationalize them.

BTW here's some actual science: Your body only gets about 10% of it's total cholesterol from the diet. The large majority of cholesterol is synthesized in your body. Recent studies have shown that your body will adapt its own production of cholesterol in accordance with dietary intake anyway.

Ultimately high cholesterol doesn't mean you will have a heart attack, the processes which determine atherosclerotic plaque formation in your arteries are more related to inflammatory processes than they are to cholesterol. High cholesterol is simply a risk factor. There are people who genetically have huge serum cholesterol readings but they aren't dropping dead left right and center.

[Agent]

I'm not sure who has access, but here's the the link to the published study

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2012.07.032

As mentioned above, the media seems to have distorted the study for effect.

It actually controls for "sex, serum total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, body mass index and pack-years of smoking". So it isn't saying it's because of higher cholesterol readings in the individuals surveyed. They're just saying there was a positive correlation between the amount of egg eating years and carotid atherosclerotic plaque.

However, their own listed weaknesses - "observational nature, the lack of data on exercise, waist circumference and dietary intake of saturated fat and sources of cholesterol other than eggs, and the dependence on self-reporting of egg consumption and smoking history, common to many dietary studies."

So essentially people who eat less eggs could be more healthy in general - lower bodyfat, healthier diet, more exercise etc. And not only do they rely on notoriously unreliable self-reporting, we don't know what else they're eating. Who knows, it's likely there's a positive correlation with eggs and bacon so who's to say that's not where the problem lies, not to mention any number of other foods. Oh, and what about alcohol consumption?

Their conclusion suggests people with high risk of cardiovascular disease avoid egg yolks, but the hypothesis needs further investigation where greater dietary detail is measured, and exercise and waist circumference is taken into consideration.

Interesting, but too many weaknesses that need correcting if possible before I'd read much into it.

[Shutupandsquat]

My girlfriend text me saying this today. I lol'd.

My family has a history of heart attacks. I have 3 eggs a day, sometimes 4 and my resting heart rate is below 60. So uhhh, yeah whatever. Unless my heart rate has nothing to do with it, but I would assume that if cholesterol intake was to kill me via heart attack or other related heart disease, my heart rate would be a lot higher?

[Riccardo]

Depends on the cause of the heart attacks bro, if it's ischaemic heart disease then cholesterol levels might be of importance to you if not then cholesterol is unlikely to be an important factor in determining whether you will have problems or not.

[dannyjay]

why are all the articles on nzherald so shit lol

[Diab0lic]

I'm not sure who has access, but here's the the link to the published study

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2012.07.032

As mentioned above, the media seems to have distorted the study for effect.

It actually controls for "sex, serum total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, body mass index and pack-years of smoking". So it isn't saying it's because of higher cholesterol readings in the individuals surveyed. They're just saying there was a positive correlation between the amount of egg eating years and carotid atherosclerotic plaque.

However, their own listed weaknesses - "observational nature, the lack of data on exercise, waist circumference and dietary intake of saturated fat and sources of cholesterol other than eggs, and the dependence on self-reporting of egg consumption and smoking history, common to many dietary studies."

So essentially people who eat less eggs could be more healthy in general - lower bodyfat, healthier diet, more exercise etc. And not only do they rely on notoriously unreliable self-reporting, we don't know what else they're eating. Who knows, it's likely there's a positive correlation with eggs and bacon so who's to say that's not where the problem lies, not to mention any number of other foods. Oh, and what about alcohol consumption?

Their conclusion suggests people with high risk of cardiovascular disease avoid egg yolks, but the hypothesis needs further investigation where greater dietary detail is measured, and exercise and waist circumference is taken into consideration.

Interesting, but too many weaknesses that need correcting if possible before I'd read much into it.

I work for a medical publishing company that produces journals and those are some strong weaknesses. That wouldn't make it into any of ours. I also don't see much value in it as it is well know that people with significant CVD risk should watch their fat intake, so why do a half ass study like this? Surely eggs play a minor role in the grand scheme of things? Someone justifying their research funding I guess.

The media report did fudge it again though. The researchers own interpretation sums it up well.

"Our findings suggest that regular consumption of egg yolk should be avoided by persons at risk of cardiovascular disease. This hypothesis should be tested in a prospective study with more detailed information about diet, and other possible confounders such as exercise and waist circumference."

Not

"OMFG 3 eggs per week will kill yoo!!!!1"

[denzil]

chur for the reassurance fellaz!